Speech Recognition in Noise by Younger and Older Adults

Abstract

Objectives:

Purpose of the present study is to evaluate the effects of aging on temporal resolution and speech understanding in noise.

Methods:

Twenty-seven young and 33 older normal hearing adults participated in this study. Temporal resolution was investigated using the Gaps in Noise (GIN) test. Understanding sentences in noise was investigated using a Dutch sentences (LIST) test.

Results:

Results demonstrated that older adults have significantly worse temporal resolution scores and significantly greater difficulty understanding sentences in noise than younger adults. In the group of older adults, the ability to understand sentences in noise correlated with hearing and age. A stepwise regression analysis showed that age was the best predictor for the speech in noise results. However, temporal resolution correlated with hearing, not with age. Results from the GIN test did not correlate with the results from the LIST test.

Conclusions:

The present study shows that with advancing age, both temporal resolution and speech understanding in noise significantly diminish. Temporal resolution correlates with hearing, not age, while speech understanding correlates more with age than hearing. These results could have implications for the outcome of auditory prostheses in older adults, as both diminished temporal resolution and speech understanding have to be taken into account.

Keywords

hearing aging temporal resolution central auditory processing speech perception

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Helfer

Wilber

. Hearing loss, aging, and speech perception in reverberation and noise. J Speech Hear Res. 1990;33(1):149-155.

Dubno

Horwitz

Ahlstrom

. Benefit of modulated maskers for speech recognition by younger and older adults with normal hearing. J Acoust Soc Am. 2002;111(6):2897-2907.

Gordon-Salant

. Hearing loss and aging: new research findings and clinical implications. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2005;42(4 suppl 2):9-24.

Dubno

Horwitz

Ahlstrom

. Recovery from prior stimulation: masking of speech by interrupted noise for younger and older adults with normal hearing. J Acoust Soc Am. 2003;113(4 Pt 1):2084-2094.

Drullman

. Temporal envelope and fine structure cues for speech intelligibility. J Acoust Soc Am. 1995;97(1):585-592.

Dorman

Marton

Hannley

Lindholm

. Phonetic identification by elderly and hearing impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am. 1985;77(2):664-670.

Duquesnoy

. Effect of a single interfering noise or speech source upon the binaural sentence intelligibility of aged persons. J Acoust Soc Am. 1983;74(3):739-743.

Cooke

. A glimpsing model of speech perception in noise. J Acoust Soc Am. 2006;119(3):1562-1573.

Snell

. Age-related changes in temporal gap detection. J Acoust Soc Am. 1997;101(4): 2214-2220.

10.

Roberts

Lister

. Effects of age and hearing loss on gap detection and the precedence effect: broad-band stimuli. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2004,47:965-978.

11.

John

Hall

III Kreisman

. Effects of advancing age and hearing loss on gaps-in noise test performance. Am J Audiol. 2012;21(2):242-250.

12.

Gordon-Salant

Fitzgibbons

. Temporal factors and speech recognition performance in young and elderly listeners. J Speech Hear Res. 1993;36(6):1276-1285.

13.

Helfer

Vargo

. Speech recognition and temporal processing in middle-aged women. J Am Acad Audiol. 2009;20(4):264-271.

14.

Snell

Mapes

Hickman

Frisina

. Word recognition in competing babble and the effects of age, temporal processing, and absolute sensitivity. J Acoust Soc Am. 2002;112(2):720-727.

15.

George

ELJ

Zekveld

Kramer

Goverts

. Auditory and nonauditory factors affecting speech reception in noise by older listeners. J Acoust Soc Am. 2007;121(4):2362-2375.

16.

van Wieringen

Wouters

. LIST and LINT: sentences and numbers for quantifying speech understanding in severely impaired listeners for Flanders and the Netherlands. Int J Audiol. 2008;47(6):348-355.

17.

Plomp

Mimpen

. Improving the reliability of testing the speech reception threshold for sentences. Audiology. 1979;18:43-52.

18.

Musiek

Shinn

Jirsa

Bamiou

Baran

Zaidan

. GIN (Gaps-in-Noise) test performance in subjects with confirmed central auditory nervous system involvement. Ear Hear. 2005;26:608-618.

19.

Rom

. A sequentially rejective test procedure based on a modified Bonferroni inequality. Biometrika. 1990;77:663-665.

20.

Bowerman

O’Connell

. Linear Statistical Models: An Applied Approach. 2nd ed.Belmont, CA: Duxbury Press; 1990.

21.

Snell

Frisina

. Relationships among age-related differences in gap detection and word recognition. J Acoust Soc Am. 2000;107(3):1615-1626.

22.

Humes

Watson

Christensen

Cokely

Halling

Lee

. Factors associated with individual differences in clinical measures of speech recognition among the elderly. J Speech Hear Res. 1994;37(2):465-474.

23.

Pichora-Fuller

Schneider

Benson

Hamstra

Storzer

. Effect of age on detection of gaps in speech and nonspeech markers varying in duration and spectral symmetry. J Acoust Soc Am. 2006;119(2):1143-1155.